I suspect that any effort to point on that men need some societal attention as well seems to infuriate the likes of cressida because it might distract from, and counter the narrative of, Nth wave feminism's goals.

This is where you guys are going wrong in this conversation. Your statement implies that women get "societal attention" and men don't. That's vague and unsupported.

And it's 2nd wave. 2nd wavers are the ones who *don't* think men are predisposed to be violent, by the way.

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."- Rosie O'Donnell

There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.- Communitarian Network's "Case for Domestic Disarmament" signed by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke

The Brady Bill is the minimum step that Congress should take to control handguns. We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.-William L. Clay

Quote

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!" -John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

And here are some really REALLY dumb quotes just for fun:(But they still display why, rather succinctly, many gun owners are unwilling to come to the table)

Quote

Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.-Patrician Eddington

We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. – Dianne Feinstein

There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.- Communitarian Network's "Case for Domestic Disarmament" signed by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke

The Brady Bill is the minimum step that Congress should take to control handguns. We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.-William L. Clay

Discusses limiting gun ownership of handguns. Doesn't suggest banning all guns. I haven't verified these quotes yet, but given the falsehoods previously passed off as truth it would probably be good if someone does.

Quote

It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.” Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.” Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Bingo!

Notice he didn't address the bill that is currently sitting on the House Floor (or is it stalled in sub-committee... Not sure since it hasn't been touched).

Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.” Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

As a non US citizen, I always find these discussions amusing in a dark kind of way. GuitarStv seems to be arguing for gun laws basically the same as those in Australia. As an Australian, I own a gun. I cannot own a semi-automatic. I do not feel a deep seated need for a semi-automatic. I see no reason for needing a semi-automatic weapon on my farm. When I shoot a fox, I aim carefully and hit it on the first shot. When I kill a goat, I aim carefully and kill it with one shot.

As for the bike analogy, I rather see then analogy as "Of course you can own a bicycle, but you can't claim that motorcycle as a bicycle."

Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.” Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

As a non US citizen, I always find these discussions amusing in a dark kind of way. GuitarStv seems to be arguing for gun laws basically the same as those in Australia. As an Australian, I own a gun. I cannot own a semi-automatic. I do not feel a deep seated need for a semi-automatic. I see no reason for needing a semi-automatic weapon on my farm. When I shoot a fox, I aim carefully and hit it on the first shot. When I kill a goat, I aim carefully and kill it with one shot.

As for the bike analogy, I rather see then analogy as "Of course you can own a bicycle, but you can't claim that motorcycle as a bicycle."

Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.” Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Yes Chris, I'm still playing that game of pointing out lies and misrepresentations used to support hyperbole. None of the quotes presented suggested a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, so I see that you are intent on keeping the game alive and well.

I get that you don't want restriction of any gun whatsoever. That's fine. If you want to say 'Hey, they're coming for my assault rifle' that's a perfectly legit complaint. If you want to say hey, some other people have come up with some draft legislation that has never made it to a reading that says it might be a good idea to restrict handguns for ownership other than for target practice, collection, federal/state/local military/law enforcement agencies, and professional security services - that's a perfectly legit complaint.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly. Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns. Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.

Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.-Patrician Eddington

We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. – Dianne Feinstein

These are some stupid things that people have said. It hurts their argument, and I certainly wish that they hadn't said them. When you use hyperbole and lies to try to prove a point, you weaken your argument. But it's kinda ironic that you couple a bunch of snicker worthy comments like this with lies and hyperbole of your own that puts you in the same category.

There are more than 8 with that amount of support (in fact, 20 measures polled received 59% or more public support) but those 8 were deemed to be likely the most effective by experts.

Just bumping this to reiterate, effective measures are available, possible, constitutional, overwhelmingly popular. They aren't happening because your congress is bought and paid for. Stop voting for incumbents.

Just bumping this to reiterate, effective measures are available, possible, constitutional, overwhelmingly popular. They aren't happening because your congress is bought and paid for. Stop voting for incumbents.

@TheOldestYoungMan, Is there a thread or could you start a thread on term limits for congress.

That is something I am particularly interested in discussing (and gauging this forum's opinion on).

There are more than 8 with that amount of support (in fact, 20 measures polled received 59% or more public support) but those 8 were deemed to be likely the most effective by experts.

Just bumping this to reiterate, effective measures are available, possible, constitutional, overwhelmingly popular. They aren't happening because your congress is bought and paid for. Stop voting for incumbents.

And also the NRA is extremely well-organized with propaganda and has a consistent message - think of all the fear they spew that Democrats want to take away your guns. They have NRATV set up - a TV network dedicated solely to push more gun ownership in this country.

Gun control advocates are typically left chasing - ban bump stocks, ban assault rifles, ban the gun show loophole, more background checks - and are thus left with an inconsistent message that fades away compared to the NRA propaganda machine.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly. Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns. Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.

Except that again, the “some classes of firearm” they are looking to “limit” are by far the most popular and widely owned. So yes, if I’m a gun owner who only owns an AR-15 and a “high capacity” semi automatic pistol, which is probably the most common combination out there, then yes, plenty of people in government have suggested “taking all of my guns”. The “you can still get a hunting rifle” is immaterial and irrelevant.

Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.” Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Yes Chris, I'm still playing that game of pointing out lies and misrepresentations used to support hyperbole. None of the quotes presented suggested a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, so I see that you are intent on keeping the game alive and well.

I get that you don't want restriction of any gun whatsoever. That's fine. If you want to say 'Hey, they're coming for my assault rifle' that's a perfectly legit complaint. If you want to say hey, some other people have come up with some draft legislation that has never made it to a reading that says it might be a good idea to restrict handguns for ownership other than for target practice, collection, federal/state/local military/law enforcement agencies, and professional security services - that's a perfectly legit complaint.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly. Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns. Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.

Politicians who claim to want to ban "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" based on cosmetics while leaving functionally equivalent weapons legal can only be (1) trying to get the camels nose under the tent to regulate the functional equivalents later, (2) hoping their supporters are too ignorant to know how the made up terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapons" are defined, or (3) so ignorant themselves that they don't know what they are advocating for.

I can understand why people assume that politicians pushing gun control really fall under option number (1) and not options number (2) or (3). Maybe that's giving them too much credit, but it doesn't seem implausible that there are gun control advocates who are not trying to dupe their supporters and who are not complete morons.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly. Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns. Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.

Except that again, the “some classes of firearm” they are looking to “limit” are by far the most popular and widely owned. So yes, if I’m a gun owner who only owns an AR-15 and a “high capacity” semi automatic pistol, which is probably the most common combination out there, then yes, plenty of people in government have suggested “taking all of my guns”. The “you can still get a hunting rifle” is immaterial and irrelevant.

If I owned a fully automatic machine gun and a sawed off shotgun in the '30s I'd be pretty upset about the government wanting to impose restrictions on those weapons too. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to complain about, and debate. It would be silly of me to try to claim that the government is banning all guns though . . . since it's obviously not true.

I get that you're upset that someone wants to take away your favorite toys. Continuing to whine about the unfairness of gun regulation because it personally impacts you doesn't make your argument any more true than it was originally though.

Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.” Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Yes Chris, I'm still playing that game of pointing out lies and misrepresentations used to support hyperbole. None of the quotes presented suggested a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, so I see that you are intent on keeping the game alive and well.

I get that you don't want restriction of any gun whatsoever. That's fine. If you want to say 'Hey, they're coming for my assault rifle' that's a perfectly legit complaint. If you want to say hey, some other people have come up with some draft legislation that has never made it to a reading that says it might be a good idea to restrict handguns for ownership other than for target practice, collection, federal/state/local military/law enforcement agencies, and professional security services - that's a perfectly legit complaint.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly. Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns. Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.

Politicians who claim to want to ban "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" based on cosmetics while leaving functionally equivalent weapons legal can only be (1) trying to get the camels nose under the tent to regulate the functional equivalents later, (2) hoping their supporters are too ignorant to know how the made up terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapons" are defined, or (3) so ignorant themselves that they don't know what they are advocating for.

I can understand why people assume that politicians pushing gun control really fall under option number (1) and not options number (2) or (3). Maybe that's giving them too much credit, but it doesn't seem implausible that there are gun control advocates who are not trying to dupe their supporters and who are not complete morons.

I think it's already been mentioned in this thread (whoops, it was the other gun thread), but the banning 'based on cosmetics' argument is not entirely true, is it?

The pistol grip is a scary cosmetic feature. Unfortunately, the ruger 223 would have been just as deadly in this situation despite its wooden stock and lack of a pistol grip.

There is a reason almost every military rifle is made with a pistol grip. It is an ergonomically superior position and it gives greater control of the weapon. Better control of the weapon in an easier to hold position = more enemy soldiers shot. The same goes for civilians. It is very likely that the Ruger Ranch .223 would not have been "just as deadly" in this situation. Still deadly, yes, just not "as deadly". Perhaps enacting laws that might result in less dead people from a mass shooting is a good place to start.

Having said that, I agree with you that banning pistol grips wont stop mass shootings. Nor will restrictions on magazine capacity. Nothing will completely stop mass shootings. Just like banning murder doesn't stop murders from happening. That's probably not a great argument for allowing murder though.

I'm not going to argue that every part of the assault weapons ban makes perfect sense (some things certainly don't), but it is disingenuous to argue that all aspects of it are purely cosmetic. Stuff like the pistol grip (aids in aiming), a collapsible stock (easier to conceal weapon), a flash supressor (makes it harder to see where someone is firing from), these are certainly not cosmetic features.

So, maybe4) Some (non-ignorant) people believe that there might be societal benefit from changing the availability of particular weapons.

Why haven't the owners of gun stores set up their own, non government controlled, database/registry of listed and de-listed buyers?

You can refuse to sell to anyone. You can even discriminate as long as you don't do so against protected classes. So get together, in the interest of protecting your business, and hire people to populate the database with violent felons and so forth. I bet the uncounted tens of thousands of homeland employees would be more than happy to keep it updated on their lunch break.

You don't even have to track who you sell to, just run the name against a list of known violent-as-fuck/batshit-crazy folks prior to purchase.

Refuse to sell to folks without a high school diploma or GED. Require a good report card/recommendation from coach/scout leader/youth group minister/ROTC/beta club/NHS etc. to sell to minors. Make it so people can update it with names when a friend says something violent on social media. "I'm gonna kill em all" is funny rhetoric and everything in certain context, but freedom of speech only goes so far and I'm sort of OK with every gun dealer in the lower 48 refusing to sell to me because I threatened, publicly, a violent act.

However the fuck you want to do it.

Why can't the leadership of our country stand up and say: Fix this.

Or better yet: You haven't fixed this already, we're fixing it for you.

There is nothing, nothing on the list of reasonable, popular measures, that the makers/sellers of guns couldn't do right now, on their own, with full control over how it is implemented and who controls the data.

??? Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient. It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough. Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids. That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride. He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors. I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older. And had no policy against it. He didn't even have an ID.

Yeah, even though I fully support an individual right to bear arms I'm really getting sick of the argument that we can't do anything because the evil government will take all our guns. I'm no longer sympathetic to it at all, in fact I find it cowardly. Maybe there are some people who do want to ban all or most guns and maybe that number is growing because our broken government refuses to come up with any better solutions. So guess what, if the only solution being offered is to ban all guns then fine, I'll support it and those who think it's a good idea. If anyone doesn't like that then I suggest they start enacting some actual workable solutions that don't involve banning all or most guns so that I can support those solutions instead.

??? Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient. It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough. Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids. That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride. He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors. I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older. And had no policy against it. He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is. But whatever.

Quote

Sec. 46.06. UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun to any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun is to be delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an unlawful act;

(2) intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years of age any firearm, club, or location-restricted knife;

Yeah, even though I fully support an individual right to bear arms I'm really getting sick of the argument that we can't do anything because the evil government will take all our guns. I'm no longer sympathetic to it at all, in fact I find it cowardly. Maybe there are some people who do want to ban all or most guns and maybe that number is growing because our broken government refuses to come up with any better solutions. So guess what, if the only solution being offered is to ban all guns then fine, I'll support it and those who think it's a good idea. If anyone doesn't like that then I suggest they start enacting some actual workable solutions that don't involve banning all or most guns so that I can support those solutions instead.

To counter Feinstein’s amendment, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) proposed a measure that would give the [US] attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.

Tldr: GOP and Dems push for gun control measures. Dems block the GOP measure out of spite and because "it didn't go far enough".

If they really cared and weren't interested in partisan politics, they would have happily taken the offer.

I don't believe escalation is the answer. Where does it end? Once all students are armed with guns?

Did the alarm bells not sound that society needs to change when people believed it necessary to have security guards at schools?

I think I can answer a couple of these concerns:1) I don't understand what you mean by "I don't believe escalation is the answer." Do you mean to say that if teachers are armed, we'll see more gun violence in schools? I have a hard time believing that armed teachers will cause *more* school shootings. We already trust teachers every day. If a teacher is going to kill a bunch of students, they have easy access. On contrary, I think that having a policy of allowing teachers to take extra training and carry concealed in schools is a good one. Why? Because even if no teachers opt to do so, it changes the school from a defenseless target to one that is far riskier for a potential shooter. Those who choose to commit these horrific crimes are often unstable, but not stupid. They don't target gun stores or police departments.

2) I agree that it's a bit disturbing that we feel the need to increase security at schools! But rather than rush to enact broad gun regulations which have little chance of making an impact, let's start looking at what has changed in our culture. After all, civilian semiautomatic rifles have been in common possession for the better part of a century.

Quote

I don't want my kids' teachers to have guns in school. I don't want there to be cops in school. I'm positive both only make this problem worse. I am baffled why anyone thinks more guns is a solution to the wrong people having and using guns. Crossfire, anyone? And really, how are police supposed to know who to take down if everyone is pulling a gun in school?

I have a hard time understanding this one. Off the top of my head, every one of these mass murders has been committed by a single person, and never by a teacher. Crossfire? I think if someone is coming into your classroom with the intent of killing as many as people as possible, a crossfire is probably the least of your concerns. Mass shootings are not an extended gun battle. They typically go until the police (or someone else with a gun) shows up, at which point either 1) the shooter gives themselves up, 2) the shooter gets killed, or 3) the shooter kills himself.

Even with the potential of a crossfire, how is this worse then the alternative of a bunch of people getting killed?

Quote

Agreed criminals do not care. But it's not just criminals killing people with guns. Avoidable accidents also contribute to the death toll.

Contribute, yes. But not a whole lot. About 600 deaths per year, or 1/20th as many as murders.

Quote

The way I see it is escalation leads to more incidents and more deaths. So what's the alternative? Nation wide mass removal of guns, without infrifging your rights.

1. Nation wide gun registry. Any gun not registered is confiscated and destroyed.

Various states (most recently New York) have a history of using such a registry to confiscate guns from people without due process.

Quote

2. Firearms license. Similar to drivers license. If you fire or are in possession of a gun and do not have a license it is confiscated and destroyed.3. Higher grade licenses required for semi automatic weapons, assult rifles (pretty much any gun that isn't built for recreational hunting)4. Secure storage requirements. You can argue the details but at the minimum guns and ammo separately secured when owner not at home, or transported in public.5. The registered gun owner is liable for the damage caused by their guns. We can argue the extent. This is to ensure all transactions go through the registry, security requirements are followed, and thefys are reported.6. Mandatory background checks, with right of appeal, and maxum decision time.

This would certainly deter gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, but would not affect criminals. Remember, the Sandy Hook shooter stole his firearms after murdering their owner. In Las Vegas, the shooter would have passed any training/examination/licensing requirements.

Quote

7. Generous buy back of guns purchased prior to change in laws coming into effect. All buy back guns are destroyed.

Can you expand on what sorts of statistics would be gathered, and what requirements would be affected?

Quote

9. Mass education on responsible gun ownership.

Hey, I have no problem with this. Perhaps we'd then get legislators who could tell a butt stock from a barrel shroud, and a semiautomatic rifle from a machine gun.

Quote

The kicker is this has to be nation wide. A single state will be ineffective as criminals will simply source from another state.

As a gun owner, what do you get out of it? 1. No one taking your guns.2. Knowledge that all other owners are moving towards greater responsibility.3. Knowledge that police can effectively remove guns from the criminal population.

1) Not quite. It actually increases the fear, because it gives more power to the government (at whatever level) to confiscate your guns.2) I think you're conflating "moving toward greater responsibility" with "complying with laws because they're law-abiding people." I don't think I know any gun owners who rate others' responsibility (or lack thereof) as a significant concern. And gun owners aren't shy about telling someone they're being dangerous.3) I don't see anything here that would affect criminals beyond what is already possible through existing gun laws.

Yeah, even though I fully support an individual right to bear arms I'm really getting sick of the argument that we can't do anything because the evil government will take all our guns. I'm no longer sympathetic to it at all, in fact I find it cowardly. Maybe there are some people who do want to ban all or most guns and maybe that number is growing because our broken government refuses to come up with any better solutions. So guess what, if the only solution being offered is to ban all guns then fine, I'll support it and those who think it's a good idea. If anyone doesn't like that then I suggest they start enacting some actual workable solutions that don't involve banning all or most guns so that I can support those solutions instead.

To counter Feinstein’s amendment, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) proposed a measure that would give the [US] attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.

Tldr: GOP and Dems push for gun control measures. Dems block the GOP measure out of spite and because "it didn't go far enough".

If they really cared and weren't interested in partisan politics, they would have happily taken the offer.

I don't care what happened in 2015. It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government. If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.

I don't care what happened in 2015. It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government. If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.

You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office. I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person. Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

I don't care what happened in 2015. It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government. If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.

You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office. I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person. Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3. Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.

??? Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient. It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough. Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids. That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride. He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors. I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older. And had no policy against it. He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is. But whatever.

Quote

Sec. 46.06. UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun to any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun is to be delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an unlawful act;

(2) intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years of age any firearm, club, or location-restricted knife;

I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable, but spouting off incorrect things like "its easier to buy a gun than spray paint" is useless for the conversation.

Umm . . . if you read a bit further on in the link you posted:

Quote

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.

I suspect that what happened was the guy's mom told the gun store it was cool - which then means there's no barrier to selling (or giving) a minor a gun.

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.

I suspect that what happened was the guy's mom told the gun store it was cool - which then means there's no barrier to selling (or giving) a minor a gun.

??? Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient. It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough. Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids. That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride. He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors. I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older. And had no policy against it. He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is. But whatever.

Quote

Sec. 46.06. UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun to any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun is to be delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an unlawful act;

(2) intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years of age any firearm, club, or location-restricted knife;

I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable, but spouting off incorrect things like "its easier to buy a gun than spray paint" is useless for the conversation.

Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion? Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion. (Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

I think I can answer a couple of these concerns:1) I don't understand what you mean by "I don't believe escalation is the answer." Do you mean to say that if teachers are armed, we'll see more gun violence in schools? I have a hard time believing that armed teachers will cause *more* school shootings. We already trust teachers every day. If a teacher is going to kill a bunch of students, they have easy access. On contrary, I think that having a policy of allowing teachers to take extra training and carry concealed in schools is a good one. Why? Because even if no teachers opt to do so, it changes the school from a defenseless target to one that is far riskier for a potential shooter. Those who choose to commit these horrific crimes are often unstable, but not stupid. They don't target gun stores or police departments.

Once guns are in classrooms, do you gueniely believe they won’t accidentally end up in the hands of students? Student (5 to 18 year olds) who are not trained in proper handling of deadly weapons, who are in some cases struggle to deal with their emotions, who can still confuse fantasy (tv) with reality, who have no concept of the consequences of their actions.

It’s a fucking recipe for disaster.

Quote

This would certainly deter gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, but would not affect criminals. Remember, the Sandy Hook shooter stole his firearms after murdering their owner.

Yes it will effect criminals. It enables the instant confiscation of weapons by police that are not legitimate.

It will ensure legitimate weapons are appropriately secured so harder to steal.

Quote

That's been tried many times. It has never proven effective.

How do you know, your government isn’t allowed to gather the statistics? PS it worked in Australia. Not only did it reduce criminal gun use, it was very effective if continuing the decline of suicides.

Quote

Can you expand on what sorts of statistics would be gathered, and what requirements would be affected?

That’s open for discussion, but I would expect stats to be gathered on all of the following incidents.

All reports to emergency services that involve guns. E.g.1. Death by gun shot.2. Injury by gun shot.3. Shot fired in public.4. Gun drawn in public5. Gun drawn in self defence6. Irresponsible use of a gun (I.e. waving around a gun at peoples faces in a shooting range)

I’d expect the following information to be gathered.1. The intent of the incident (self defence, intimidation, murder)2. The gun make/model3. The legal status of the gun4. The license level of the gun holder5. Incident outcome

Quote

1) Not quite. It actually increases the fear, because it gives more power to the government (at whatever level) to confiscate your guns.2) I think you're conflating "moving toward greater responsibility" with "complying with laws because they're law-abiding people." I don't think I know any gun owners who rate others' responsibility (or lack thereof) as a significant concern. And gun owners aren't shy about telling someone they're being dangerous.3) I don't see anything here that would affect criminals beyond what is already possible through existing gun laws.

1. Only those who flaunt the rules should fear greater responsibility.

2. We’ve already got an example in this thread of someone’s boss selling a gun to anyone. Responsibility of transfer of ownership is beneficial to responsible gun owners.

3. As mentioned above, instant confiscation of unregistered firearms by police. Reduced chance of the aft of guns. It all helps.

I don't care what happened in 2015. It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government. If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.

You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office. I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person. Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3. Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.

Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it. But #1 is the kicker. Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them. And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).

I've trimmed some of the quotes below for the sake of brevity. I hope you don't mind.

Once guns are in classrooms, do you gueniely believe they won’t accidentally end up in the hands of students? Student (5 to 18 year olds) who are not trained in proper handling of deadly weapons, who are in some cases struggle to deal with their emotions, who can still confuse fantasy (tv) with reality, who have no concept of the consequences of their actions.

It's possible, but highly unlikely. There are already millions of people who carry concealed in public, and you very rarely, if ever hear about a gun accidentally ending up in someone else's hands. There are already school districts that allow teachers to carry concealed, and there have been no incidents that I've heard of where a kid has got ahold of it. The point is to create uncertainty and risk for potential attackers. Students (or attackers) won't know who (if anyone) is carrying.

Quote

Quote

This would certainly deter gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, but would not affect criminals. Remember, the Sandy Hook shooter stole his firearms after murdering their owner.

Yes it will effect criminals. It enables the instant confiscation of weapons by police that are not legitimate.

It will ensure legitimate weapons are appropriately secured so harder to steal.

Can you give me a specific situation where this would make a difference? Police already confiscate weapons from people who are "prohibited persons" (felons, mentally ill, etc). As for security from theft, if a criminal has physical access to your house and knows where your gun safe is, chances are they'll get into it. Sure, it increases the barrier to theft, but it's really still nibbling around the edges.

Quote

Quote

That's been tried many times. It has never proven effective.

How do you know, your government isn’t allowed to gather the statistics? PS it worked in Australia. Not only did it reduce criminal gun use, it was very effective if continuing the decline of suicides.

I have a couple issues with this one:1) Australia's crime rate, like the US's, was already on the decline. "Effective [at] continuing the decline..." is speculation. All we know is that it was declining before the buyback, and it continued to decline afterward.2) Australia's buyback was not voluntary. Even law-abiding citizens (and likely, only law-abiding citizens) had to turn in their guns, even if they posed no threat to anyone.

Voluntary buybacks in the US have historically been political stunts. "We took 2157 guns off the streets" sounds great, but when nearly all of the guns are bolt-action rifles, rusted pieces of junk, and pellet guns (seriously, I'm not kidding!), it becomes comical. See also "tragic boating accident" :D

Quote

Quote

Can you expand on what sorts of statistics would be gathered, and what requirements would be affected?

That’s open for discussion, but I would expect stats to be gathered on all of the following incidents.

All reports to emergency services that involve guns. E.g.1. Death by gun shot.2. Injury by gun shot.3. Shot fired in public.4. Gun drawn in public5. Gun drawn in self defence6. Irresponsible use of a gun (I.e. waving around a gun at peoples faces in a shooting range)

I’d expect the following information to be gathered.1. The intent of the incident (self defence, intimidation, murder)2. The gun make/model3. The legal status of the gun4. The license level of the gun holder5. Incident outcome

#1 is already tracked. #4-6 are going to be really hard to track, from a practical perspective, for a couple reasons: 1) there's a lot of those types of events, 2) a lot of them happen with people who wouldn't be allowed to own guns, and 3) law-abiding folk will be afraid to report it because they (right, IMO) fear that they'll lose their ability to own a gun.

Quote

Quote

1) Not quite. It actually increases the fear, because it gives more power to the government (at whatever level) to confiscate your guns.2) I think you're conflating "moving toward greater responsibility" with "complying with laws because they're law-abiding people." I don't think I know any gun owners who rate others' responsibility (or lack thereof) as a significant concern. And gun owners aren't shy about telling someone they're being dangerous.3) I don't see anything here that would affect criminals beyond what is already possible through existing gun laws.

1. Only those who flaunt the rules should fear greater responsibility.2. We’ve already got an example in this thread of someone’s boss selling a gun to anyone. Responsibility of transfer of ownership is beneficial to responsible gun owners.3. As mentioned above, instant confiscation of unregistered firearms by police. Reduced chance of the aft of guns. It all helps.

PS I'm glad we agree on the education front.

1) This sounds an awful lot like "nothing to hide, nothing to fear." There's already a long and storied history of governments on various levels instituting gun-control measures and then abusing them to confiscate guns from innocent people without due process. Like I stated earlier, New York's Safe Act has already racked up some impressively scary stories.2) I may have misunderstood you on this one. I thought you were referring safe storage of guns, but it now sounds like you meant background checks/tracing for private sales. Is that correct?3) Whose guns are getting confiscated here? If it's a person who's allowed to own guns in general, why should it matter whether the gun is registered to them? If it isn't, and they're allowed to own guns, just update the record--no need to confiscate the gun, nor is there any reason to. (note: this is by no means an endorsement of any sort of registry) If it's a criminal ("prohibited person") the police already confiscate guns. So I fail to see how it would make a difference.

Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion? Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion. (Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.I'll wait.

However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.

I don't care what happened in 2015. It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government. If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.

You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office. I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person. Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3. Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.

Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it. But #1 is the kicker. Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them. And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).

PS. It might help your cause to stop saying that you want to arm teachers and instead actually explain that you just want to give them the option to be armed in order to give the appearance of a harder target whether they actually decide to be armed or not.

I don't care what happened in 2015. It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government. If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.

You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office. I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person. Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3. Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.

Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it. But #1 is the kicker. Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them. And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening). Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.

Quote

As for security from theft, if a criminal has physical access to your house and knows where your gun safe is, chances are they'll get into it. Sure, it increases the barrier to theft, but it's really still nibbling around the edges.

It's pretty easy for a criminal to break into your car and steal it (or anything inside it). Most of us still lock our car though, because increasing barrier to theft reduces instances of theft. There's also the knock on benefit of making it harder for a child in the home to gain access to a firearm.

3) Whose guns are getting confiscated here? If it's a person who's allowed to own guns in general, why should it matter whether the gun is registered to them? If it isn't, and they're allowed to own guns, just update the record--no need to confiscate the gun, nor is there any reason to. (note: this is by no means an endorsement of any sort of registry) If it's a criminal ("prohibited person") the police already confiscate guns. So I fail to see how it would make a difference.

If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun. Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered. This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.

I don't care what happened in 2015. It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government. If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.

You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office. I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person. Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3. Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.

Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it. But #1 is the kicker. Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them. And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening). Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.

Quote

As for security from theft, if a criminal has physical access to your house and knows where your gun safe is, chances are they'll get into it. Sure, it increases the barrier to theft, but it's really still nibbling around the edges.

It's pretty easy for a criminal to break into your car and steal it (or anything inside it). Most of us still lock our car though, because increasing barrier to theft reduces instances of theft. There's also the knock on benefit of making it harder for a child in the home to gain access to a firearm.

3) Whose guns are getting confiscated here? If it's a person who's allowed to own guns in general, why should it matter whether the gun is registered to them? If it isn't, and they're allowed to own guns, just update the record--no need to confiscate the gun, nor is there any reason to. (note: this is by no means an endorsement of any sort of registry) If it's a criminal ("prohibited person") the police already confiscate guns. So I fail to see how it would make a difference.

If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun. Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered. This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.

I'm pretty sure arming teachers will also have the residual effect of turning many current and potential teachers away from the profession.

PS. It might help your cause to stop saying that you want to arm teachers and instead actually explain that you just want to give them the option to be armed in order to give the appearance of a harder target whether they actually decide to be armed or not.

PS. It might help your cause to stop saying that you want to arm teachers and instead actually explain that you just want to give them the option to be armed in order to give the appearance of a harder target whether they actually decide to be armed or not.

I'll leave the whole "democrats don't vote in lock step comment" where it lies, as that's a whole other rabbit hole which is not relevant to the topic at hand.

I have stated in other posts in this thread that it would be a publicly-announced option for teachers, exactly as you describe. "Arming teachers" is just a shorthand way of referring to it, rather than "allowing teachers to carry concealed in schools."

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening). Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.

It's a possibility, sure. However, there's no data to confirm that hypothesis. If anything, we have the opposite. I believe both Texas and Utah allow teachers to carry concealed, and have done so for several years without incident.

Quote

It's pretty easy for a criminal to break into your car and steal it (or anything inside it). Most of us still lock our car though, because increasing barrier to theft reduces instances of theft. There's also the knock on benefit of making it harder for a child in the home to gain access to a firearm.

A barrier? Sure. One that effectively and significantly reduces how many guns are in the hands of criminals? I don't know--I haven't seen any studies which have looked into safe storage requirements and their effect on the rate of gun theft.

Quote

If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun. Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered. This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.

As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them. What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork. I have a problem with that.

Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation. Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out. Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.

I'm pretty sure arming teachers will also have the residual effect of turning many current and potential teachers away from the profession.

I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear. Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed. What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.

Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion? Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion. (Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.I'll wait.

However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.

"I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable"

equals

I don't appreciate anyone's opinion on things to which they are not knowledgeable.

and

To be truly knowledgeable on something would make you an expert.

expertˈɛkspəːt/Submitnoun1.a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion? Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion. (Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.I'll wait.

However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.

"I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable"equalsI don't appreciate anyone's opinion on things to which they are not knowledgeable.andTo be truly knowledgeable on something would make you an expert.

expertˈɛkspəːt/Submitnoun1.a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

You seem to not understanding the positions of adverbs in syntax. I have underlined it for you.

Either way, those are some pretty big steps you're taking defending a position that is demonstrably false.

You cannot buy a gun at 16 in Texas (the original poster's location and statement). Only way around it is with written permission of a parent or guardian (which would require them to be present). The original statement: "It should not be easier to buy a gun than spray paint". Clarified by the anecdotal statement "I bought a gun at 16 and the laws haven't changed". To which I posted the legal code that, no, you could not buy a gun at 16 today in Texas, and therefore, it was not "easier to buy a gun than spraypaint".

But sure... Try to make that out to mean I don't listen to anyone or value their opinion unless they are an expert of firearms law. Thats TOTALLY what I meant... (roll eyes) /s

This is why these conversations never go anywhere.

Still waiting on anyone to discuss anything useful. Prolly not gonna happen. :/

Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion? Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion. (Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.I'll wait.

However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.

"I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable"equalsI don't appreciate anyone's opinion on things to which they are not knowledgeable.andTo be truly knowledgeable on something would make you an expert.

expertˈɛkspəːt/Submitnoun1.a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

You seem to not understanding the positions of adverbs in syntax. I have underlined it for you.

Either way, those are some pretty big steps you're taking defending a position that is demonstrably false.

You cannot buy a gun at 16 in Texas (the original poster's location and statement). Only way around it is with written permission of a parent or guardian (which would require them to be present). The original statement: "It should not be easier to buy a gun than spray paint". Clarified by the anecdotal statement "I bought a gun at 16 and the laws haven't changed". To which I posted the legal code that, no, you could not buy a gun at 16 today in Texas, and therefore, it was not "easier to buy a gun than spraypaint".

But sure... Try to make that out to mean I don't listen to anyone or value their opinion unless they are an expert of firearms law. Thats TOTALLY what I meant... (roll eyes) /s

This is why these conversations never go anywhere.

Still waiting on anyone to discuss anything useful. Prolly not gonna happen. :/

I'm just responding to comments and assertions you have made.

It's a forum discussing a hot topic. I can see you are frustrated. But there is no need for sarcasm...

Check out the other thread. I have proposed a starting point for a solution there. Let me know what you think.

If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun. Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered. This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.

As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them. What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork. I have a problem with that.

The current system intended to disqualify certain people from owning firearms doesn't work.

Currently:You buy a gun privately. You sell it privately to someone else without asking anything about the other person, as is your legal right. Is he a criminal? Who cares. Are you a straw purchaser? Who knows. Is the weapon stolen, or has it been used in a crime? You don't really know.

With a registry:You buy a gun privately. You sell it privately to someone else. To transfer ownership, you were registered as the gun owner. When you sell you change the registry from your name to the person you're selling it to.- This ensures that everyone who has a gun transferred to them will actually get a background check.- This makes it impossible to be a straw purchaser and not get caught (the gun will either be registered to you, or the criminal you're trying to sell to).- If at some point in the future you're diagnosed as a danger to others or you become a criminal law enforcement can take away all of your firearms.- You know that you're not buying a stolen weapon or a weapon used in a crime when buying privately.

Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation. Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out. Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.

It's possible to circumvent nearly any law. I can drive my car without insurance and get away with it. That doesn't mean that insurance shouldn't be legally required to drive a car, or than having these laws are without value.

I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear. Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed. What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.

While I'm unconvinced that this would have any impact on school shootings, I don't really have a problem with it - provided that accidents with the guns don't ever happen in schools. A kid who is shot by their teacher accidentally is just as dead as a kid who was shot by their classmate on a rampage.

I don't understand why it's considered unreasonable to have a gun registry. We register cars. Hell, I can't even buy psuedophedrine anymore without being logged into a system to make sure I'm not buying too much of it. I was barred from buying one box of adult Sudafed and one bottle of children's once in VA when we were all miserably sick from a cold because that was just too much to buy at one time (the only time that YEAR I'd tried to buy it, mind you). Yet, deadly weapon? No registry, no limits. This seems entirely unreasonable to me on so many levels.

As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them. What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork. I have a problem with that.

The current system intended to disqualify certain people from owning firearms doesn't work.

If the current system were used as intended, it *would* work. Instead of creating a much more invasive system that will fail for the same reasons, let's fix the one we have.

Quote

Currently:You buy a gun privately. You sell it privately to someone else without asking anything about the other person, as is your legal right. Is he a criminal? Who cares. Are you a straw purchaser? Who knows. Is the weapon stolen, or has it been used in a crime? You don't really know.

With a registry:You buy a gun privately. You sell it privately to someone else. To transfer ownership, you were registered as the gun owner. When you sell you change the registry from your name to the person you're selling it to.- This ensures that everyone who has a gun transferred to them will actually get a background check. - This makes it impossible to be a straw purchaser and not get caught (the gun will either be registered to you, or the criminal you're trying to sell to).- If at some point in the future you're diagnosed as a danger to others or you become a criminal law enforcement can take away all of your firearms.- You know that you're not buying a stolen weapon or a weapon used in a crime when buying privately.

In order:1) I assume that since background checks are only not required for private sales, that you're referring to private sales only. Is that correct? Criminals already obtain 90% (IIRC) of their guns illegally, i.e. stolen or straw purchases, so this really just nibbles around the edges, at least by itself. I'd be in favor of granting access to NICS, so if I sold a gun, I could make sure the buyer isn't prohibited.2) Yes, this would aid in tracing a gun's chain of custody. I read an article that said the FBI gets about 300,000 trace requests per year. I wonder how many of them would actually result in criminal convictions?3) There's no need for a registry here. Get a court hearing to prove the person is a danger, get a court order for him/her to sell or relinquish his guns, search the house after.4) I have a hard time believing that a lot of stolen/used-in-a-crime firearms are being sold to law-abiding people. I'm sure there are a *few*, but c'mon. Besides, why (other than the risk of the police confiscating it as evidence and/or confiscating it to return it to its owner) would I really care? Heck, I'd *prefer* that type of weapon get back in the hands of a law-abiding citizen!

Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation. Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out. Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.

It's possible to circumvent nearly any law. I can drive my car without insurance and get away with it. That doesn't mean that insurance shouldn't be legally required to drive a car, or than having these laws are without value.

True, but that's really apples and oranges. If you choose not to get car insurance, you're probably not doing so in order to mask a more serious crime.

I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear. Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed. What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.

While I'm unconvinced that this would have any impact on school shootings, I don't really have a problem with it - provided that accidents with the guns don't ever happen in schools. A kid who is shot by their teacher accidentally is just as dead as a kid who was shot by their classmate on a rampage.

Some states are already doing it with no issue. Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions. Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them. What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork. I have a problem with that.

The current system intended to disqualify certain people from owning firearms doesn't work.

If the current system were used as intended, it *would* work. Instead of creating a much more invasive system that will fail for the same reasons, let's fix the one we have.

Quote

Currently:You buy a gun privately. You sell it privately to someone else without asking anything about the other person, as is your legal right. Is he a criminal? Who cares. Are you a straw purchaser? Who knows. Is the weapon stolen, or has it been used in a crime? You don't really know.

With a registry:You buy a gun privately. You sell it privately to someone else. To transfer ownership, you were registered as the gun owner. When you sell you change the registry from your name to the person you're selling it to.- This ensures that everyone who has a gun transferred to them will actually get a background check. - This makes it impossible to be a straw purchaser and not get caught (the gun will either be registered to you, or the criminal you're trying to sell to).- If at some point in the future you're diagnosed as a danger to others or you become a criminal law enforcement can take away all of your firearms.- You know that you're not buying a stolen weapon or a weapon used in a crime when buying privately.

In order:1) I assume that since background checks are only not required for private sales, that you're referring to private sales only. Is that correct? Criminals already obtain 90% (IIRC) of their guns illegally, i.e. stolen or straw purchases, so this really just nibbles around the edges, at least by itself. I'd be in favor of granting access to NICS, so if I sold a gun, I could make sure the buyer isn't prohibited.2) Yes, this would aid in tracing a gun's chain of custody. I read an article that said the FBI gets about 300,000 trace requests per year. I wonder how many of them would actually result in criminal convictions?3) There's no need for a registry here. Get a court hearing to prove the person is a danger, get a court order for him/her to sell or relinquish his guns, search the house after.4) I have a hard time believing that a lot of stolen/used-in-a-crime firearms are being sold to law-abiding people. I'm sure there are a *few*, but c'mon. Besides, why (other than the risk of the police confiscating it as evidence and/or confiscating it to return it to its owner) would I really care? Heck, I'd *prefer* that type of weapon get back in the hands of a law-abiding citizen!

2) Given that there are an awful lot of problems with the current paper trail, I'd suspect very few:- It's not easily searchable (by law), which means that more time/effort/resources must be spent to follow it for an investigator. There are limited resources investigating a crime, when you waste them like this it makes crime fighting less efficient overall.- Firearms dealers who choose to sell to criminals are also in charge of the records that prove who they're selling to.- Gun records are kept as paper copies by firearms dealers, and are occasionally subject to being destroyed by flood/fire/etc. After 20 years, the records are destroyed and the guns become invisible.- There's no record of any kind and the paper trail completely stops after a private sale

3) Here's a scenario for you where the current system fails and a registry wouldn't - I'm a bad guy. I want to shoot up the local school. I've purchased a couple dozen guns from private sellers. I keep some of them at the house, and some in a box in the woods. Police get word of my plans, get a court order for my guns, and search the house. They find some of my guns and head home happy, job well done. Of course, I shoot up the school a couple days later . . . because there's no record of what weapons I have already amassed and nobody knew that they should have kept looking.

There are many more scenarios like this one.

4) Maybe the gun was used a couple weeks ago in an armed robbery, and now the criminals are making it disappear . . . so you're helping them hide evidence of their crime. Maybe that kind of thing never happens. The fact of the matter is, you don't know where the weapon comes from because there's no way of knowing. With a registry there would be.

Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation. Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out. Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.

It's possible to circumvent nearly any law. I can drive my car without insurance and get away with it. That doesn't mean that insurance shouldn't be legally required to drive a car, or than having these laws are without value.

True, but that's really apples and oranges. If you choose not to get car insurance, you're probably not doing so in order to mask a more serious crime.

A lot of people who have lost their licences (for say DUIs) will drive without insurance because they know they can't get it. So yeah, it is being used to mask a serious crime.

I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear. Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed. What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.

While I'm unconvinced that this would have any impact on school shootings, I don't really have a problem with it - provided that accidents with the guns don't ever happen in schools. A kid who is shot by their teacher accidentally is just as dead as a kid who was shot by their classmate on a rampage.

Some states are already doing it with no issue. Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions. Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/). Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:

Quote

Quote

4. Gun drawn in public5. Gun drawn in self defence6. Irresponsible use of a gun (I.e. waving around a gun at peoples faces in a shooting range)

#4-6 are going to be really hard to track, from a practical perspective, for a couple reasons: 1) there's a lot of those types of events, 2) a lot of them happen with people who wouldn't be allowed to own guns, and 3) law-abiding folk will be afraid to report it because they (right, IMO) fear that they'll lose their ability to own a gun.

Some states are already doing it with no issue. Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions. Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/). Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:

Some states are already doing it with no issue. Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions. Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/). Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:

I appreciate that you've decided to start checking references. You can rest assured that my comment was honest.

The 241 number is listed as the number of confirmed 'unintentional shootings' from the main page of the website. It's the last number given in the box on the left. (Try ctrl-f and then type "unintentional" and you'll see it.) This is a combination of people injured by accident and killed by accident. You appear to only be counting the dead.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that my child neither die nor be shot because an idiot with a gun in the classroom made a mistake.

Some states are already doing it with no issue. Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions. Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/). Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:

I appreciate that you've decided to start checking references. You can rest assured that my comment was honest.

The 241 number is listed as the number of confirmed 'unintentional shootings' from the main page of the website. It's the last number given in the box on the left. (Try ctrl-f and then type "unintentional" and you'll see it.) This is a combination of people injured by accident and killed by accident. You appear to only be counting the dead.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that my child neither die nor be shot because an idiot with a gun in the classroom made a mistake.

Except you bolded his statement regarding shooting deaths being around 500 per year and subsequently listed your number of "241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month" in direct contradiction with the numbers he posted.

If the conversation isn't going to be honest, why bother.

Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.